Obviously I only had a short chance to test the new beta version and may well have some settings wrong, but it seems the new version is suffering from "ringing" artifacts. Small, 1 pixel wide copies of edges. It's less distinct in the preview, more distinct in a rendered file.

it happens with default settings, and no amount of denoise or reduced sharpening mitigates the problem.

PS. I am glad to see that the product naming hasn't yet trickled down to the application itself. Hope it stays that way...

OK, found it: it's a cropping bug. As soon as you adjust the cropping overlay, it messes up the rendering pretty bad...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not sure it is what you are referring to, but there is a known bug in the cropping tool described in the "readme" file that comes with the beta4 download. You might look at that to see if it is a known issue.

Not sure it is what you are referring to, but there is a known bug in the cropping tool described in the "readme" file that comes with the beta4 download. You might look at that to see if it is a known issue.

It is a little faster than B3, but still kind of pokey. However, it is pretty quick doing RAW conversions. One benefit I think most people aren't considering is that the greatly improved workflow through to printing, assuming that no dust spotting is required, saves a lot of time over the usual ACR+Photoshop workflow.

I'm definitely buying the retail release version and I'm only a amateur.

Oscar,I haven't noticed that issue (G5 mac). Perhaps you could post a screenshot?

Certainly can:

During the creation of this example I noticed that the cropped image has its pixels shifted by half a pixel which may account for the problem. The problem is obviously exacerbated when output sharpening is applied. As a matter of fact, it makes it simply impossible. Incidently, I was testing several DAM utilities and thus also RAW processors. It turns out that Aperture has an interesting halo problem as well. The same kind of edges as in this example show a rather large desaturated halo, no matter what setting of denoise or chroma blur.

I really like the rendering in LR. The smooth slider seems to get rid of the maze problem formerly present in ACR renderings, yet it retains fine detail better than DPP. I'll see if I can create an example later.

On the less positive side: I believe there is an over abundunce of sliders in LR currently. That needs to be seriously reworked. There should be one way to get a result, and that should be the right way. Now there are several ways to reach a result, and I think that a lot of people will have a hard time explaining the subtle differences between all sliders (if there are differences).

Another example: the saturation sliders. We only need a single saturation slider and it should work as follows: when + it should be vibrance, when - it should be saturation. Additionally, if +, it should simply follow a curve shape, not a gamma shape, this will eliminate the need for some esoteric "skin" color preservation blah blah...

I really like the rendering in LR. The smooth slider seems to get rid of the maze problem formerly present in ACR renderings, yet it retains fine detail better than DPP. I'll see if I can create an example later.

Oops, should retract that statement. Forgot to turn on Noise Reduction in the DPP preferences. Setting this to Low produces the good old canon smoothness. Turning it off will result in maze patterns in fine detail. The LR rendition still shows maziness even at Smooth = 100%. The DPP conversion seems to create a strange Bokeh artifact.

I suppose this simply remains the digital equivalent of selecting the best film (= raw converter) for the job at hand. There doesn't currently seem a one-size-fits-all converter.

The absolute, most powerful feature of ACR or LR over all other RAW converters is the chromatic aberration correction which seems to be processed in the source space, as opposed to Bibble for example which does so in the destination space which leaves faint remains of the problem. But not all pictures require ca-correction in which case a DPP buttersmooth conversion, even in smaller colorspaces, may be preferable.

It ain't finished folks, so lets hold the performance judgments 'till it is as complaining about it accomplishes nothing.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77826\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How about they stop expecting people to give them feedback on a product that isn't totally useable to evaluate? I know it's a beta, but if someone mentions its slow, then, SUPRISE!, they are giving feedback saying that it needs to be faster. I find it funny that complaining about features denotes "Feedback", but complaining about a lack of speed is just complaining.

It is worlds faster that the previous beta. Still slow.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I found B3 a little faster, but still slow. Maybe there is too much processing going on with the thumbnails, as it just takes over the processor. Possibly its not optimised for older processors. My PC runs everything else reasonably well. I'd like to use it but I can't.

Quentin

Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013

I found B3 a little faster, but still slow. Maybe there is too much processing going on with the thumbnails, as it just takes over the processor. Possibly its not optimised for older processors. My PC runs everything else reasonably well. I'd like to use it but I can't.

Sigh...B3 was impressively trouble free. Perhaps in pushing to be ready for Photokina, the development team reached too far. Enough problems have surfaced to take a wait and see approach. When work-arounds are evident or Adobe releases changes, I'll be more inclined to try B4.

How about they stop expecting people to give them feedback on a product that isn't totally useable to evaluate? I know it's a beta, but if someone mentions its slow, then, SUPRISE!, they are giving feedback saying that it needs to be faster. I find it funny that complaining about features denotes "Feedback", but complaining about a lack of speed is just complaining.

*Waits to be attacked*[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77870\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Everyone knows it's slow, and they (Adobe and those deeply involved in the project) have stated several times that it is not finished nor optimized but it will be once it is released. Thus...

We all have a chance to use a very nice organizer/converter/etc program for free and we all have an equal opportunity for give constructive feedback to make it better. Why then, would anyone want to waste their time complaining about something that everyone knows will be taken care of? All that does is make the complainer look ungrateful of the opportunity they have as well as make it harder to take their other feedback seriously.

We all have a chance to use a very nice organizer/converter/etc program for free and we all have an equal opportunity for give feedback to make it better. Why then, would anyone want to waste their time complaining about something that everyone knows will be taken care of? All that does is make the complainer look ungrateful of the opportunity they have as well as make it harder to take their other feedback seriously.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77913\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Opportunity? What opportunity? The damn thing won't run on my otherwise healthy Windows system. I don't have a chance to use an unuseable program. My feedback is thus inevitably limited to "Its so slow I can't use it" and seeing as this was not the expected outcome of downloading and installing a reasonably advanced Adobe Beta product, I think I and others thus affected are entitled to say so.

Quentin

« Last Edit: September 26, 2006, 07:46:57 PM by Quentin »

Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013